This is the framework, then, upon which much research on the various models of leadership have been carried out through the years and it is often considered to be the more useful one upon which to conduct analyses. This is because of the widely acknowledged fact that the very social process through which one individual tries to exert his own influence on others in his own way is actually demonstrated in a large number of inter personal relationships between a number of people anywhere in the world. (Tannenbaum; Weschler; Massarik, 1961).

             Some examples of these are the relationship between the 'superior and his subordinate', the staff with the line, the salesman with his customer, the consultant with his client, a teacher with his student, the husband with his wife, a parent with his child, and so on and so forth. These are the normal relationships that always occur in the context of groups, and within organizations, and also within a set of cultures, and are in turn influenced by the organizations and cultures themselves. Therefore, it can be stated that when one desires to understand leadership better, then one would have to try to gain a deep insight into the very nature and character of a personality or of a group or of an organization. .

             Thereafter, one must attempt to analyze the various cultural variables that would invariably be present in any one group of several different individuals, and then analyze the various interrelationships between them and the variables that are seen in a system of influence of this particular kind. The two most important elements in such a framework of leadership analyses are, primarily, the so called 'social sensitivity' or what is also known as 'empathy', and 'action flexibility', or what is also known as 'behavioral flexibility'. Both these variables are of extreme importance when analyzing leadership, and its effectiveness and its causes.